In the United States v. California case of 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of federal supremacy over state laws concerning offshore mineral rights within three miles from a state's coastline. The dispute arose when California claimed ownership and control over these resources, arguing that they were part of its submerged lands. However, the court held that under both historical precedent and legislative intent behind the Submerged Lands Act (1953), such areas are considered as part of federally controlled Outer Continental Shelf rather than state territory. Therefore, it was determined that states do not have jurisdiction or proprietary interest in this zone but only receive a share from revenues generated by oil drilling operations there as per federal law provisions.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. California, the justices argued that the majority's decision to uphold federal authority over offshore resources was an unwarranted expansion of federal power at the expense of state sovereignty. They contended that there was no constitutional or statutory basis for such a broad interpretation of federal jurisdiction and criticized what they saw as judicial activism on part of their colleagues in deciding this case. The dissenters also expressed concern about potential implications for states' rights and local control over natural resources, arguing that these issues should be resolved through legislative action rather than court rulings. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's reliance on international law principles to justify its ruling, asserting instead that U.S domestic law should govern disputes between states and federal government within national borders.